The Ministry of Women Parts 3 & 4

From the Differentiator magazine:
The Ministry of Women Parts 3 & 4

Part 3

One of the peculiar products of the present age is a feeling of malignance towards the Apostle Paul, especially among certain women, due very largely to what is supposed to be his attitude towards women. The result of this has come to be a strong feeling of prejudice against anything that Paul has written. His teachings are set against those of the Lord, with the further result that his writings are treated as unreliable.

Such an attitude is nothing if not Devil-inspired. It might suit the great mischief-maker better to prove the Scriptures to be very faulty, rather than get them obliterated altogether.

We are persuaded that the Apostle Paul must have been one of the finest characters in all history. The late Dr. A. T. Schofield of London said that sensitive people were the salt of the earth. The Apostle Paul was extraordinarily sensitive. He was interested in everybody of whom he heard, or met, and sympathized with all and prayed for all. If anyone was broadminded, it was Paul. Paul's heart was set on fire because he realized the infinite heights and depths of the love of God made known in the Good News, that old-time religion that "makes me love everybody."

"Christ or Paul?" is the title of a booklet published in the year 1946 by a clergyman in the South of England. The writer has nothing good to say of Paul, who is represented as being the chief cause of many of our present day evils. To him Paul did not seem to possess a single virtue. "Everything he does and says revolves round himself." Paul is "one of the most inconsistent of men." Paul, having never been in the company of Jesus, is "a mere interloper." The writer digs many a pit for his own feet through his gross ignorance of the Greek of the New Testament. This is notably so when he discusses "The Pauline Attitude to Women." Paul had a "violent prejudice against women," and "regarded them as definitely inferior to men, and refused them any place or part in the Christian ministry." Paul "pours scorn on all women in general" and has "low views of marriage." Quoting 1.Cor.11:3, "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God," he claims that Paul here teaches woman's inferiority to man. Strange to say, however he does not insist that Christ is "inferior" to God because God is His head.

Such reckless teaching, based largely upon reckless translation has undoubtedly caused some women to become antagonistic to Paul. The same writer claims that because there were "women priests in the temples of Egypt, Greece and Rome," there ought to-day to be priestesses in the English Church. What he fails to state is that in every non-Christian system of religion, throughout the ages, priests and priestesses have almost invariably been far from chaste. The same is true of the Roman Church. Never has there been, in any age of this world, a generation of which more than a very small fraction has been righteous or chaste.

If for the last nineteen centuries, God has been calling out from the Gentiles a people for Himself, it is very likely that He has been choosing out very much the same number of people each century, whatever may be the special characteristics of each age. The age of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, if they ever existed, and the age of the Crusades and the resulting age of Chivalry, were not likely to have been any more Christian than other ages.

Another writer, a lady, is sure that woman is not only not inferior to man, but decidedly superior, in some ways. Adam was the "chief offender," and because Eve was "thoroughly deceived," she is not nearly so culpable, even though she was just as disobedient as Adam was. Eve was not held accountable for the Fall, and in fact, we are told, God elevated her to an honourable position as being the enemy of Satan and the progenitor of the Messiah. We are even told that Eve Obtained "eternal life," and therefore there was no need for her to be kept from the Tree of Life! Also, because of her confession and faith, she found favour with God, and excellence was found in her, although she had fallen. Then, because we are told that God drove the man out of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24), it is implied that Eve remained there. From this method of reasoning, we might infer from verse 19, "unto dust shalt thou return," that Eve never returned to the soil or dust!

It has been claimed too, that Adam wanted to subjugate Eve to his rule, but God warned Eve against this arrangement. In spite of this, Eve in her affection for her husband, "turned away" to Adam and yielded to him. Therefore it is averred that the lordship of the husband over the wife is Satanic in origin. 1. Tim. 2:14, however, tells us very clearly that while "Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded (or over seduced), in transgression has come to be." Adam evidently decided to stand by his wife, out of his affection for her.

That Adam was the individual to bring sin into the world has been maintained by the claim that he fell, or was beginning to fall, ere Eve was created. Scripture, however, is destitute of any such teaching. In fact, every claim that woman is generally superior to men runs counter to the clear statements of Scripture. One such claim is based On the fact that in four cases out of six, the name of Prisca or Priscilla is mentioned before that of her husband Aquila (Acts 18:18,26; Rom. 16:3; II. Tim. 4:19), while in only two cases is Aquila mentioned first (Acts 18:2; I. Cor. 16:19). The implication is that Prisca was pre-eminent or of more importance than her husband. There may be, however, two very simple and human explanations of the order of the names. Prisca may have been very prominent in possessing "the gift of the gab," and using her tongue more fluently than Aquila. All of us have known people like that. There is also a linguistic reason for the order of the two names. The Greeks did not care for a word ending with a vowel when the next word began with a vowel. For the same reason, in the southern half of England, it is easier to say "the Indian Office" than to say "the India Office." In the four cases where Prisca is named first, her name is more easily sounded after a preceding vowel than her husband's name would be. Speakers generally find the smoothest and easiest way to make their statements, and do so unconsciously.

We must now examine the statement in Gen. 3:16 regarding the husband, that "he (emphatic) shall rule over thee." First, however, we must look at the previous part of the verse, "thy desire (shall be) to thy husband." The RS. Version reads, "yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Dr. Young (Critical Comments) suggests, "thy desire is still towards thy husband for more sons, and in the midst of all this he is thy master." Rotherham reads, "Yet unto thy husband shall be thy longing, though he rule over thee." The Greek Version reads, "and toward thy husband thy turning-away (apostrophE), and he will-be-lord of thee." Charles Thomson's rendering of the Greek Version is as follows, "to thy husband shall be thy recourse, and he shall rule over thee."

The word "recourse" seems very attractive for the, Hebrew word (theshuqah), which is allied to the word which means to tread or tramp back and forwards; a street, as trodden (shuq); the leg (as the tramper or treader). The woman was to have recourse to her husband, to turn away or turn back to him, not to the seducer. Now this is quite in line with the statement that he in turn, would exercise some kind of rule.

Just what kind of rule is the important point here The Concordant Version renders thus: "Yet by your husband is your restoration, and he shall rule over you," but shews that literally this should be "And to (or unto) your husband. . . . and he shall rule in you."

If the wife is to have recourse to her husband (and every normal and truly human wife does so), it follows that the husband's "rule" (or advice, opinion) will exercise a certain sway within her.
Here it must be pointed out that the Hebrew word for "rule" (mashal) is sometimes followed by the preposition which means on or over (Ol), and sometimes by the preposition which means in the letter. Occasionally no preposition follows the verb, as in Gen. 1:16, where God makes two great luminaries, the greater for ruling the day, and the smaller for ruling the night. But in verse 18 these are "to rule in the day and in the night," as the Concordant Version rightly renders. Why then should we not render similarly in ch. 3:16, "he shall rule in you?"

If the sun rules or regulates in or during the day, what is the meaning of the husband ruling or regulating in the wife?

Jehovah Elohim had just passed sentence upon the woman, for being too easily seduced, too ready to yield to her soulish desires. By having in future recourse to her husband, first of all, her conduct would in any emergency be swayed or regulated by his opinion and guidance.

A meaning must be found which is germane to the passage, and congruent with the context.
It may help us to compare I. Cor. 11:3, where we learn that "of every man the head is the Christ, yet head of a wife the man (or husband), yet head of the Christ-God." But the head rules or regulates within or throughout the body, not necessarily over it. The head directs the members.
Probably the thought we are searching for is akin to the idea in Col. 3:15, "let the peace of God rule in your hearts," which in the Concordant Version is rendered "let the peace of Christ arbitrate in your hearts." Goodspeed renders "Let the ruling principle in your hearts be Christ's peace." Other versions read, act as umpire, preside, control, govern, be paramount.
Such a principle works from within outwards. No grounds are stated in Gen. 3:16 for a husband ruling over a wife by domination or force. But there were strong reasons for Eve in future seeking the guidance of Adam, who was not so easily deceived.

A few more examples of the Hebrew word mashal will help us to understand its usages. The Proverbs of Solomon are Rules or Regulations or Directions, for the purpose of inculcating wisdom and instruction and understanding (Prov. 1:1-4). These are not Laws, but merely Regulations. They are intended to benefit and direct the reader, not to place him in any form of subjection.

Prov. 16:32 states that he that rules his spirit is better than he that takes a city. The Hebrew says, "he that rules in his spirit," or "within his spirit." That is to say, he that controls his spirit.
Joseph's brethren were naturally very jealous and indignant because of his dream, so they said to him (Gen. 37:8), literally, "Reigning wilt thou reign over us, ruling wilt thou rule in us (or, among us) ?" This brings out clearly two different thoughts, which we might distinguish roughly as subjection and interference. They assuredly did not wish their whole lives to be directed by Joseph.

Psalm 59:13 is correctly rendered, "let them know that God ruleth in Jacob." The thought is very different from ruling over Jacob.

Micah 5:2 correctly reads "out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel." The Lord will not only reign over Israel, but He will rule and direct within Israel, and in their hearts. This verse is quoted in Matt. 2:6, but somewhat differently, "Who shall shepherd My people Israel." Now the Shepherd directs his flock, and controls it.

It is most unfortunate that scholars who have dealt with the place accorded to women in Scripture have failed to observe the niceties of the Hebrew language in Gen. 3:16. A case in point is "The Bible Status of Woman" by the Rev. Lee Anna Starr, D.D., LL.D., published in U.S.A. in 1926, covering over 400 pages. This is quite a learned book and the authoress is proficient in both Hebrew and Greek, but apparently falls short of the highest standard of concordance exactitude. Two chapters, or 27 pages, are devoted to the words, "he shall rule over thee," and large parts of the whole volume are taken up with the wrongs which have been throughout the centuries inflicted by men upon women. It is also lamentable that the late Dr. Katharine Bushnell did not observe the point we emphasize, in her book, "God's Word to Women."

Jehovah Elohim never told Eve that Adam would rule over her. Nor did He tell Cain that he would rule over Abel (Gen. 4:7).

Basing her arguments upon this false rendering at Gen. 3:16, and thereby strongly biased against the superior position supposed to have been granted to Adam, or to man,Dr. Starr writes as follows :—"Much has been made of the fact that the tempter approached Eve rather than Adam. Ellicott says: 'According to rabbinical writers, Eve was addressed because it was very doubtful whether man would have yielded.' Eve, the 'weaker vessel,' accomplishes the downfall of the stronger. The Serpent could not subvert Adam; Eve had apparently little difficulty in this regard, thereby proving herself stronger than the Arch-Tempter." Then she quotes Milton's "Paradise Lost," as attributing "Adam's lapse to conjugal love. Devotion to Eve impelled him to share her downfall. A poet's fancy! Adam's charge against his wife immediately after the transgression was by no means symptomatic of undue affection on his part: 'The woman Thou gavest to be with me, she gave to me, and I did eat.'"

We must protest against this form of argument, which seems to shew how the feminine mind can be led by feelings instead of by facts. We quote again, "What was there in the behavior of Adam on the occasion of the Fall that merited sex exaltation? Was he less culpable than Eve? We have the Pauline assertion that he was not deceived (1.Tim. 2:14). Eve, on the contrary, was beguiled. Is the high-handed transgressor to have precedence? Is the deliberate wrongdoer to be rewarded with supremacy? Also, the stress of temptation must be taken into consideration in meting out justice. Eve yielded to the assault of a supernatural being; Adam, on the other hand, succumbed to the solicitation of a 'weaker vessel.' Again, Adam's demeanor when confronted by Jehovah, borders on defiance. We are startled at the daring of his answer: 'The woman that Thou gavest to be with me, she gave to me, and I did eat.' He responds with a counter-charge, and poses as being himself aggrieved. God and woman are joint-authors of his downfall. His arrogance is rewarded with sex Supremacy. Before he sinned, he shared dominion with his wife; now he is empowered to subjugate her, and to rule henceforth as sole sovereign 'over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'"

We sincerely hope it is not the learned authoress who pours defiance upon the accepted Divine statement found in Gen. 3:16.

It should be evident that both Adam and Eve were equally guilty, as both disobeyed God. It was through the disobedience of "the one human" that the many were constituted sinners (Rom. 5:19).

We cannot assert that one was more disobedient than the other. Eve hearkened to the voice of the Serpent, and Adam was sentenced "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife." In other words, Adam was sentenced and "punished" because he had obeyed the voice of Eve. The Hebrew word for "hear," " hearken," and "obey" is one and the same, shmo, occurring over one thousand times (rendered by obey or obedient 88 times; and by hear, hearken, be heard 962 times).

That Adam laid the blame for his aberration upon Eve is utterly false. He was not endeavouring to clear himself by blaming another, any more than Eve was seeking to lay the blame upon the Serpent. Both of them honestly pled guilty. They stated the plain and simple facts in a manner perfectly straightforward. My reasons for saying this are as follows. Adam had so far had only one experience of sin. Not yet could his whole character have become thoroughly debased and selfish. A child which first commits a fault may continue largely guileless and innocent for a considerable time. Adam did not become suddenly a totally wicked and depraved and selfish man. Although he disobeyed God, in hearkening to his wife, he was sufficiently conscious of his Oneness with his wife to stand by her honourably, and face the judgment each must receive by God. Various expositors have thus understood 1. Tim. 2:14, and the Concordant Version note thereon agrees. For Adam to hearken to his wife seems a lesser crime than for Eve to hearken to the Serpent.

In our next part we hope to examine several other interesting and important points found in the Rev. Dr. Lee Anna Starr's book, chiefly points from ch.11 of 1st Corinthians, including that very disputed matter of women having power or authority on their heads "because of the angels." As this authoress wisely writes, we must never find Paul inconsistent with his own teachings. Let us have a firm faith that all the masterpieces of divine revelation contain the solution to our problems, if only we will handle the records with sufficient caution, consistency and reverence.

Part 4

It is very interesting to study a person's mentality, whether male or female. Can we judge in which direction someone will think, under certain circumstances? Perhaps the most interesting person will be he or she whose process of thought we can never foretell.

No one could fail to realize that "The Bible Status of Woman" by the Rev. Lee Anna Starr, D.D., LL.D., was written by a woman. And, indeed, she certainly champions the cause of women in no uncertain style. Like other ladies who have written on similar subjects, she maintains that Women are a finer and superior creation of God than are men.

Taking, however, a broad and comprehensive view of the general Bible teaching regarding all mankind, we consider that no case can be made out for either sex being better or worse than the other. Probably as many women as men were swept away from the earth by the Flood. The argument that in the Christian churches women outnumber men in attendance by two to one proves nothing. "Women preponderate numerically in all branches of the church. They are more active in philanthropic and eleemosynary enterprises. Even in heathen lands they are more responsive to the appeals of religion. While the Bible makes no such distinction, men in all ages have set the moral standard higher for women than for their own sex. This is tacit admission on their part of the moral superiority of women."

As the Bible makes no such distinction, it would be wiser not to make such assumptions as the above. Many fine women think the men are superior morally.

Arguments against the superiority of man are thus arrayed: (a) The order of man's creation militates against such claim. The order of creation was ascending, not descending. The lower orders first. Each successive creative act brought forth higher; (b) The substance from which his body was formed—"The dust of the earth"—was inorganic. Woman, on the other hand, was built of organic substance;(c) Man physically is of coarser mold. The beard and hirsute cuticle ally him, in appearance at least, more closely to certain members of the animal kingdom. Darwin is quoted as having incautiously admitted that "hairiness denotes a low stage of development." This is false. The hairs of the body are relics of primeval halos, lost at the Fall.

Let us not become unconsciously irreverent through overlooking that the Lord Jesus Christ was Man—not Woman.

Regarding man's attitude towards woman in the world's history, our authoress writes: "From the hour of his apostasy man felt it incumbent upon him to supervise woman; to see that she underwent in fullest measure the penalty imposed upon her. He rebuked every attempted evasion as rebellion against the Almighty. So intent has man been in this effort to supervise woman that he has at times overlooked or ignored the terms of his own sentence." Moreover, "Woman's strong religious instinct contributed to her subjugation."

What did primeval man understand by the primeval prophecy? Did he read the sentence passed upon Adam and Eve in a corrupt or defective modern English version? How would he understand that Adam was to rule in Eve? There was nothing to teach him that man was to rule over woman.

Admittedly there has been much subjugation of women by men, and of women by other women, from the earliest times, But not in fulfilment of the primeval prophecy.

Dr. Starr admits that in the patriarchal age no subordination of women was taught or implied in Scripture.. "The freedom and independence of the married woman in the patriarchal period puts to shame much of modern jurisprudence. Her property rights were assured to a degree scarcely equaled by our most advanced legislation." Of the Mosaic legislation she writes, it was "noteworthy in that it assigned to woman honorable position in the home, church and state," and cites Proverbs 31 as proof. The Mosaic Code was "singularly free from sex discrimination." "Under the reverberations of Sinai, Hebrew womanhood was elevated to a status approaching that of Eden." But the Captivities wrought change, and "close contact with the laws and customs of other nations effected revolution in the popular mind."

In various other lands women have occupied positions of high honour ever since the times of the Queen of Sheba, who came out of the ends of the land (of Sheba) to hear the wisdom of Solomon (Luke 11:31). Esther attained the same high rank (Est. 2:17), while in Ethiopia Candace was Queen (Acts 8:27). Europe has seen some famous Queens, since the time of Boudicca, Queen of the Ikeni in Britain in the first century A.D., whose army routed the Romans. These facts will help to correct false ideas about the age-long subjugation of woman by man. No One can measure the influence of the 64-year reign of Queen Victoria on the status of women, not only in Britain, but in many other parts of the world.

Dealing with the Greek word which is used of wives submitting or subjecting themselves to their husbands (hupotassO; which we understand in the sense of being in dependence, literally, under-set), Dr. Starr observes that this term is never used in the N.T. in relation to children and bondservants. This, however, is not the case. The word is so used at Luke 2:51; Titus 2:9; and 1. Peter 2:18.

While the authoress rightly admits that the subjugation of the husband would be to her as repellent as the subjugation of the wife, the trend of her mind is revealed in her treatment of 1. Tim. 5:14, where Paul expresses the wish that the younger widows marry, bear children, and manage the household. The last expression, "manage the household" is one word in Greek (oikodespotein), part of which gives us the word "despot." She says this verb is the strongest word in the Greek language for "rule." In Modern Greek the word means to control or have dominion. The mistress of the house is called despoina. DespotEs means master or ruler, and is also applied to a bishop (or overseer) as one who controls. This word does not mean "despot" in our modern English sense.

"Who are included in this household, over which the wife is to hold despotic sway?" asks our authoress. "Is the husband himself a member, or does he stand without the pale? There would be no difficulty in determining the matter if the Apostle had conferred despotic authority on the husband."

Objection is taken, also, to the Greek word "deacon" (diakonos) being rendered only once in Paul's epistles as "servant," in the case of Phoebe (Rom. 16:1). Elsewhere, out of 22 occurrences in all, it is rendered three times by "deacons," and by "minister" in all the other cases.

Apparently it is considered that the term "servant" in the case of Phoebe is humiliating and derogatory. This, however is not really so. The root meaning of the word is service. Where Paul uses the word he never means a minister in the sense of a clergyman, but One who performs a ministration or service on behalf of the Gospel. The root of the Greek words is between-serve . The idea of dispensing, or a dispensation, is quite erroneous, and very misleading. The Concordant Concordance puts it very correctly as "work done for the welfare of others, that which is served out." To dispense means in English not only to administer, but to distribute, while to dispense with means to do without. We could not translate, at Matt. 20:28, "as the Son of Mankind came, not to be dispensed, but to dispense and to give His soul a ransom for many." He came to minister or to serve, not to be ministered to or serve.

At 2 Cor.3:7 the New World version renders, "Moreover, if the code which administers death and which was engraved in letters in stones came about in a glory. . . ." while in verse 9 it is found to be "the code administers condemnation." Rotherham reads, "But if the ministry of death—in letter-engraven in stones—was brought into existence in glory." That code served out death and condemnation, and the servicing was engraven or chiselled in stones.

Regarding 1.Cor.11:4-16, Dr. Starr makes some very pertinent and useful remarks, which we shall summarize. Greek custom decreed that men should uncover their heads in worship. At Corinth this was a very live issue. Women, however, must be veiled during prayer or prophecy. Greek and Roman custom required that women veil when in public, because, in the East, it is only public prostitutes that go without veils. The unveiled head was therefore a proclamation of harlotry. Paul never urged the wearing of veils on the ground that they symbolized subjection. Commentators say that man should uncover his head because he is God's representative, while woman should hide her face because she is man's. Dr. Starr says that here Paul's reasoning is not only ingenious, but logical. The point to be stressed is not the lordship of man, but the dishonour shewn Christ by an act of irreverence. To unveil the head was to recognize His Divinity; to omit this homage was to degrade Him to the level of a human being, and so the Greeks would interpret. Hellenists always bared their heads in the presence of their deities; this they deemed an act of worship. The Greeks did not deem it an act of irreverence on the part of women to pray or prophesy with their head covered. But doing so they did not dishonour Christ. Her uncovered head would signify harlotry. The punishment meted out to an adulteress was to have her head shorn.

No doubt some of the above is quite true. The authoress, however, seeks to make out that Paul invariably sought to fall in with local customs. Can it be that Paul's instructions were only local and temporary? Surely not. In verse 14 Paul appeals to age-long natural human instinct, in the matter of long hair.

The statement in verse 10, that "the woman ought to have power on her head" is explained as "power over her head," that is, that the woman should have the right of self-determination in the matter of veiling or unveiling.

There are, however, two reasons against this interpretation. The context does not permit of such an explanation, while verse 5 has already clearly disposed of the matter of woman's head being covered or uncovered. Woman is denied the power to decide which she will do in prayer or prophesying. Ten pages are devoted to proving that woman should possess this power over her own head-whether it should be covered or not. Dr. Starr waxes very sarcastic over the errors and efforts of translators. Then she deals with the remarkable and important words which terminate verse 10, "because of the angels," Here are her words, "Here is a clause that has nonplussed commentators. Through the centuries they have wrestled with it, and at times have brought discredit on themselves and on the angels. The question is not of vital moment here, so we pass it by without discussion."

"Not of vital moment"? Others think the clause is an integral part of the argument, and very vital. Angels ought ever to be welcomed even though they come in disguise. Will their presence here not help us to explain the passage?

To assert that in the centre of verses 8 to 12, dealing with the relative position in nature and "in the Lord" of man and woman, verse 10 means that woman ought to have the right to deal with her own head as she thinks fit, is completely out of order. Surrounded by a context which deals with man and woman, verse 10 must somehow be connected with man. Paul is not dealing with the independence of women, but with the dependence of women upon men and the dependence of men upon God. Man's headship is based on the account of the creation, which shews him as the direct reflexion of God, and woman as derived from him. In these human relationships it appears the angels have some interest. As Godet puts it, Man, by his sovereignty over the terrestrial creation, visibly reflects the sovereignty of the invisible Creator over all things. Man is, and has been all along, God's image and glory, glory shed upon God from the visible image He has formed, especially when man voluntarily renders Him homage for his high position, and casts at God's feet that crown which God has put on his head. In 2.Cor. 8:23 Paul's associates are called ,"Christ's glory," because they made the Lord's work in their ecclesias to shine before the eyes of those to whom they were delegated.

Man, therefore, ought not to veil this dignity in public. He must not veil "God's image and glory" (1. Cor.11:7) by veiling his head. By the same rule, woman ought to cover herself. Logically we might read in verse 7, "For a man, indeed, ought not to be covering his head, image and glory of God existing-all-along (huparchOn). Yet a woman (ought to have her head covered, for she) is man's glory." Paul omits to say here that woman is made in God's image, as she is not man's reflexion, but his counterpart. Woman partakes, through man, in the image of God. As Prof. G. G. Findlay says, "That which in our common nature is most admirable—faith, purity, beauty—man sees more excellently and proportionately shown in hers. It follows that he who degrades a woman sullies his manhood, and is the worst enemy of his race; the respect shown to women is the measure and safeguard of human dignity."

Noble Christian women ought to derive great satisfaction from these facts. In fact, the position God has given women must be as satisfactory to them as man's position is to him. It is often stated that the position of the Church now being called out by God will in the ages to come be vastly more glorious than that of Israel during the Thousand Years. Be that as it may, Israel will assuredly never think themselves in any position inferior to the Church, and probably will think they have been more highly blessed.

Verse 10 develops the statement found in the former part ,of verse 7. Verse 9 says "man was not created on account of the woman, because of the woman" or even more literally, "through (the fact of) woman." Verse 10 continues, "On account of this, the woman ought to be having (or wearing, as some put it) authority on the head," because her nature is derived and auxiliary. Just as a soldier under the colours of the King or Queen might be said to "have authority over his head."

Dunbar's Greek Lexicon says regarding the Greek word exousia (authority or jurisdiction), that it signifies a veil used as head-dress, not because it was emblematical of woman's subjection to a husband, but as being a badge denoting rank or dignity.

Unfortunately Dr. Starr's whole argument from 1.Cor. 11 has been spoiled through a small grammatical blunder. While she correctly renders verse 9, pointing out that the Greek preposition dia, when followed by a word in the accusative case, means "on account of," in verse 12 she has failed to observe that this word dia is now followed by a word in the genitive case, which makes the sense to be, "the man (is) through the woman." She would wrongly render, "So is the man also for (or, on account of) the woman," thus totally upsetting Paul's argument, and making the sexes equal.

Now what about the angels? Why are they brought into the discussion? And why in verse 10, which is concerned with women? All the commentaries will inform us that for centuries there has been much doubt regarding the meaning of the statement, "because of the angels." As Paul has given no further explanation, it may be that there is no mystery after all. The solution may be perfectly simple and straightforward. For various reasons I use the word "angels" here not "messengers," which is apt to be ambiguous, as some expositors have sought to make out that human agents or intermediaries are meant.

Are angels interested in human affairs? There is much evidence of this in the Scriptures.
Luke 12:8, Whoever confesses Christ in front of men, the Son of Man will confess in front of the angels of God.

Luke 15:10, There comes to be joy before the angels of God over one sinner changing his mind.
1.Cor. 4:9, We become a glazing-stock (Greek, theatre) to the world, and to angels, and to mankind.

Heb. 1:14, Are they not all (the angels) ministering spirits for service commissioned on account of those about to be inheriting salvation?

1.Tim. 5:21, Paul conjures Timothy before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to guard the truth.

Eph. 3:10, The multifarious wisdom of God is even now being made known to the sovereignties and authorities in the heavenlies, and no doubt to angels also.

1.Peter 1:12, Angels appear to be very eager and curious to learn about matters of prophecy
Principal Edwards says angels are examples to women of holy creatures that keep their place of subordination. Alford thinks of angels as spectators, viewing the decency and order of the servants of God. Godet thinks "The woman ought to have on her head a power," that is, a sign of power. A note in the Concordant Version to 1.Cor.11:7 is appropriate, "It would seem that the messengers, or angels, realize these various headships (i.e. vv. 7-12) and the signs which should acknowledge them. Hence though men have lost all appreciation of their significance, it is still due to these unseen observer to comply with a custom which is in accord with both nature and revelation."

Finally, I quote from Stanley's Paraphrase of the passage in 1. Cor.11: "whilst man represents the nature and the majesty of God, woman represents the majesty of her husband. It is from the uplifted open countenance, the 'as sublime,' of man, that God is to receive glory; it is from the covered head and veiled face of woman created from his side, and for his companionship, that man is to receive glory. Therefore his authority is to be seen visibly resting on her head in the covering which shrouds her from the view of those angelic beings, who were the first. . . . to entice her from that subjection to which God had appointed her. It is not meant that in Christianity either man or wife is independent of each other. Each by the very fact of their origin is dependent, one on the other, and both on God."

Alexander Thomson